Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 618970

Principles for identifying structural differences. Some methodological issues related to comparative factor analysis.

Abstract

Several recent articles published in the Journal of Gerontology have been concerned with changes in factor structure of various psychological, social, and medical fitness measures. The present article reviews four principles for comparing structures and evaluates several recent articles in terms of these principles. The four principles are concerned with resolving: (1) problems of metric, (2) problems of rotation to similarity, (3) the number of factors problem, and (4) problems related to different extraction or rotational procedures across comparison groups. Utilization of a different metric in each correlation matrix implies that results may be a simple artifact of a different metric for each group. Failure to rotate to similarity and insufficient care with regard to the number of factors problem may result in artificially dissimilar structures. Finally, in comparing results across studies, differences in extraction or rotational procedures across different studies may result in differing results as artifacts of the methods employed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W R Cunningham. 1978. Principles for identifying structural differences. Some methodological issues related to comparative factor analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj%2F33.1.82

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

"Factor analyses of the family assessment device," by Ridenour, Daley, & Reich.

Ridenour, Daley, and Reich conducted a series of factor analyses using the correlational matrix of the subscale scores of the Family Assessment Device (FAD), published in Family Process, December, 1999. They conclude that "the FAD subscales be reorganized from their current seven-subscale format" (p. 507). We propose that this suggestion for reorganization is premature and based on the inappropriate application of an "internal consistency" model of scale construction to the FAD. We further suggest that the most important criteria regarding an assessment instrument are those of reliability, validity, and clinical utility. In the absence of this kind of data regarding alternative organizations of the FAD, we believe that the original subscales remain the best choice.

Factor Analysis, Statistical